Circular doesn't mean you can rotate the filter, great missunderstanding. You can also rotate a linear polarized filter. There is linear polarized light and circular polarized light (CPL) therefore the name "circular".
Indeed. And in both linear and circular polarising filters, you need to rotate the filer in order to assign the effect to where you want/need it. We should also know that some surfaces defeat the polarising filter and in that case we need to polarise the light falling on the subject (e.g. metals). Which means this may work i a studio, but not in a city/land-scape.
Appreciated the review. When I was working in a camera store for years before I always recommend the CPL as one of the "MUST Buy" add on item for their photography tool since it's a quick and easy way to cut through glares and bring back the contrast quickly for a great image. That been said, even though a premium filter degrades the OG images a little bit and most people would not notice even when zoom in at 100%, I still always recommended a premium MCUV filter knowing the digital camera's sensor already has the UV protection baked in. There are some photographers who have very good routine when changing lenses with the flat hood always installed; however, accidents happens when least expected. When I see many customers walking in the camera store with lenses dropped on the front end and ready to cry on my shoulders, the first thing I ask is always "Do you have a protective filter installed?" and if the answer is "Yes" than the chance of survival on the front optical glass or bent front ring is dramatically increased and often is just removing the front protective filter and replace with another one even if I have to break the front filter and cut the metal ring off the lens. If the answer is "No".... I often fear the worst for the owner. MC (Multi Coded) filter, like the multiple OG glasses in the lens have coding may provide a bit of help but the two most important parts are: 1.) Protecting the front glass element of the lens from the environment as well preventing the coating to be wiped off due to constant cleaning and incorrect cleaning solutions used and 2.) To decrease dust & moisture been sucked into the zoom lenses' "breathing holes" at the front of the lens (not as much for primes & internal zoom lenses but some still have them) which most owners are not aware of and more subjective to mold growth when equipment are not located in low moisture condition. When "pumping" a zoom lens with palm (or paper) covering the lens, if the feeling of suctions occurs it means the lens is sucking in air from the front element and so would dust and moisture be entering the lens barrel(s) with these type of design even if the barrel has weather sealing. I am sure this maybe be a controversial topic for many but I am only sharing my personal experiences in hope to help others to keep their valuable equipment better protected.
Sadly more then glass can break when you drop a lens. I have seen lenses trashed without even breaking the glass just from killing the mechanisms such as stepping motors and AF controls. More often tgan not, if you drop a lens hard enough to break a protective filter, you probably did more damage than meets the eye.
Another tip about CPL filters: the maximum increase in blue sky saturation takes place at about 90 degrees perpendicular to the direction of the sun. So even if the sun is high, they can help make the horizon less hazy. Also, they can be very useful in landscape photos because they reduce any reflection from the surfaces of leaves to make them look greener, as well as making any water features look more colorful. If your scene has a mix of high wispy cirrus clouds and lower puffy cumulus clouds along with some blue sky, the clouds will really "pop" nicely. Also, as someone else commented, CPLs do not reduce reflection from polished metallic surfaces.
Gotta disagree with you; I always have glass up front….AND YOU CANT TELL the difference! Unless the pixel peeping supplants the actual shot. And if that’s the case…bigger issues are present. Me- 44 years commercial; lost my first lens still in high school, at a motorcross event…ROCK dead center. Two more lenses, unprotected…nailed in the next few years…ALL a victim of front element damage…that a FILTER would’ve helped the odds against damage. But that’s just me! And I haven’t lost a single lens to optics damage in 35+ years. WORKS.😅
Agree Tommy. My daughters ''Sky"' filter I think it was called smashed but expensive lens AOK after we got the filter remains off. On all my lenses. Cheers
I am sorry to say that the function of good CPLs has nothing to do how well KASE is making filters (which they do - but there are many other manufacturers who make also good filters). A CPL filter is improving the image quality due to the laws of physics namely polarization dependent Mie scattering and polarization dependent reflections close to the Brewster angle - it is simply optics. Of course a bad filter might hurt more than it helps.
@@mattgranger No I did not - I clearly agree that there is an impact on flare reduction when you add a polarizing filter. The comment simply addresses the fact that reflected or scattered rays are polarized in case certain conditions are met (see above) and therefore all polarizing filters have the potential to improve lens performance and improve image quality provided that they are well made. There are different processes responsible for it - one is reflection (say from water, glas etc. - as you say) and the other one is scattering (say from fog and the sky). Both polarizing effects have a different origin and different behavior. KASE certainly makes good filters as well as B+W, Nikon, and others. On my 800 pf I am able to get rid of most of the sometimes unwanted PF-element artifacts and make the bokeh visibly softer. I am myself currently working on a video addressing the use of polarizing filters in wildlife photography and I will also go into the details with respect to the different origins in physics with respect to polarization.
A CPL works great for the vintage car shows I go to. You definitely don’t want to remove all the reflections as it makes the image flat and boring, but you do want to see into windows etc. you obviously have to use it get the desired results not more and it doesn’t always work because of the angle of the sun.
Reflected light is polarized parallel to the reflecting surface (glass, water, but not metal, because of its electric properties). The first (outward facing) element in a (somewhat erroneously called) CPL filter is linear polarizer. To eliminate the reflected light the linear polarizer needs to be cross (perpendicular) to the polarization direction of the reflection. However polarized light as it comes out after passing trough the linear polarizer upfront bothers the autofocus system (at least that used to be the case, don’t know if that is still valid) Filter manufacturers, therefor e add a so-called quarter wave plate that converts the linear polarization into circular polarization (hence the name), that doesn’t bother the focus measurement.
At the same time this video came out there were also a ton of other videos released about KASE filters. That leads me to believe it's more of an ad than a new realization that a polarizing filter could reduce flares and produce better images.
be careful when choosing a polarizer, there are cheap circular polarizers that are single coated. and those will degrade image quality. Its better to not use a polarizer than use a shitty one. Also polarizers reduce the amount of light transmitted, about 1-2 stops. So obviously the amount of light reflected from the lens is lower in your test @9:36 because it appears two stops darker. would be the same if you used an 2 stop ND filter. Because you will have a longer exposure the amount of internal reflections does not change.
Interesting video as usual! Some random thoughts based on your video and personal experience: - this is probably more relevant for outdoors shots, shots where the sun (or the big source of light) is not behind camera or shots that have a huge plane of focus (it's a similar concept to dehaze in lightroom) and obviously all those scenarios where a polarizer is normally used (shots of water, trasparent glass, people with glasses, highly reflective surfaces) - it is not clear to me how this could give benefits to a normal portrait shoot light setup (a 2 lights rembrandt+fill for example), might be worth a test (I'd think that the benefits and image degradation would cancel eachother out, which is still good) - a polarizer makes it that much harder to photograph some atmospherical behaviours such as rainbows, mirages and water reflections. This might be obvious to someone who uses these filters often, but it should be pointed out to new adopters (this is due to the fact that all these phenomenons use polarized light, which is light that has lost some of its phase components due to reflection)
Matt, you need to do some reading on what a Circular Polarizer actually is. Because your statement that it spins is completely wrong. Yes it does spin, so does a Linear Polarizer. The Circular poloraizer is actually a linear Polarizer that has an additional Quarter Wave layer that de-polarizes the light coming out of the filter. The allows the light leaving the filter to pass thru the semi silvered mirrors on Autofocusing SLR's so the AF sensor behind that mirror can function. With a linear polarizer if the filter was in the area of a orientation that causes that light to be blocked then you can have very flaky AF responses and in Nikon's case metering that varies depending on how the polarizer was set because that was also behind the mirror on the AF models. BTW, on a mirrorless camera both linear and circular polarizers will function perfectly because of no mirrors. However back before these semi silvered mirrors were in use it was common to take two linear polarizers and stack them. By crossing the rotation of one of the filters you could have a budget Variable Neutral Density Filter. It's one reason why when I was shooting with my F2 I always had two 52mm Linear Polarizers in my bag.
Fabulous info Matt!. Now, how about asking for the almost impossible.... something that would work on my 8-15 F4L fisheye. When I shoot 360 images, invariably bright indoor lights cause a massive amount of flares and I spend hours cleaning that up in post. I do use a few tricks (i.e. block the light source ) if it's going to be captured in another overlapping shot but often that's impossible or impractical. That... would be a worthy investment for me.
Not a 100% convinced about those photographs in the evidence section Matt... If the sun is just a much in the frame as the No cpl and generic cpl filter images than that filter is amazing. But to me it seems like there is more sunlight being blocked by the leaves in the background and thus that is increasing the image clarity/contrast instead of the filter. Still very intresting improvements for cpl's so will definitly look into them
For 5 years now, since I got into the digital cameras, I'm a believer in the CPL lens. ... Rather than flat grass at the store want to sell you with the lens I was buying.
I freaking knew it! People look at me like I’m a troglodyte for saying that it cuts on internal reflections and it can boost your image rendition. People look at me like I’m crazy and say that I should have just closed down the aperture to get the same result. It’s not the same! The image still looks washed when closed down at times!
A couple of notes. 1. A polarizer, linear or circular, won't fix reflections off of metal surfaces 2. A lens hood is the primary way to avoid flare and ghosting. If you have to keep the hood off to rotate the polarizer then you may more than offset the benefits of coatings.
Realy to add to this disbelief, as you reco ended I installed the Kase but UV internal filter to protect the cencer , i also found slightly sharper images . To be honist i didt belive it eather .
I was an "Opticalman" in the navy, repairing navigational gear Telescope, binoculars. gun sights and periscopes and more. I don't know about new technology. Vietnam error we ere using WWII technology. And polarizing filter help a great deal.
The protection against scratches by a clear or UV filter is worth the tiny degration of quality. Never had issues with the GOBE/URTH filters i use on all of my lenses
I have never seen a front element damaged in a way that the rest of the lens didn't also have damage that required service UNLESS there was a uv filter on there. In my experience, as a former camera shop staff who also had a repair service, a UV filter is more likely to cause scratches or thread damage when it breaks, than just not having a filter on there in the first place. UV filters break very easily. Steve Perry has a video on this, many filters break more easily than a piece of paper.
@scriptosaurusrex It protects against fine scratches from general use and that is what i want. If i drop the lens i have other issues than a broken filter
I have actually compared over 20 brands... its easy to assume 'my one is the best' until you compare them side by side... ruclips.net/video/qlaSjUwhAtQ/видео.html
Agree with you. Without comparison they are all good. I do own three 82mm CPLs: Sigma CPL; 2) B+W basic CPL; 3) B+W CPL Master HTC Kasemann MRC Nano (it has word Kase on its name)🙂
@@mattgranger Absolutely, can't even read phones or tablets sometimes. But wearing them does give you a different look at things you're missing with glare since maybe we aren't always looking through a viewfinder. I often tip them up and am amazed at the contrast differences sometimes just walking around
Circular doesn't mean you can rotate the filter, great missunderstanding. You can also rotate a linear polarized filter. There is linear polarized light and circular polarized light (CPL) therefore the name "circular".
Indeed. And in both linear and circular polarising filters, you need to rotate the filer in order to assign the effect to where you want/need it.
We should also know that some surfaces defeat the polarising filter and in that case we need to polarise the light falling on the subject (e.g. metals). Which means this may work i a studio, but not in a city/land-scape.
Reducing internal reflections is also why we should always use a lens hood.
Appreciated the review. When I was working in a camera store for years before I always recommend the CPL as one of the "MUST Buy" add on item for their photography tool since it's a quick and easy way to cut through glares and bring back the contrast quickly for a great image.
That been said, even though a premium filter degrades the OG images a little bit and most people would not notice even when zoom in at 100%, I still always recommended a premium MCUV filter knowing the digital camera's sensor already has the UV protection baked in. There are some photographers who have very good routine when changing lenses with the flat hood always installed; however, accidents happens when least expected. When I see many customers walking in the camera store with lenses dropped on the front end and ready to cry on my shoulders, the first thing I ask is always "Do you have a protective filter installed?" and if the answer is "Yes" than the chance of survival on the front optical glass or bent front ring is dramatically increased and often is just removing the front protective filter and replace with another one even if I have to break the front filter and cut the metal ring off the lens. If the answer is "No".... I often fear the worst for the owner. MC (Multi Coded) filter, like the multiple OG glasses in the lens have coding may provide a bit of help but the two most important parts are: 1.) Protecting the front glass element of the lens from the environment as well preventing the coating to be wiped off due to constant cleaning and incorrect cleaning solutions used and 2.) To decrease dust & moisture been sucked into the zoom lenses' "breathing holes" at the front of the lens (not as much for primes & internal zoom lenses but some still have them) which most owners are not aware of and more subjective to mold growth when equipment are not located in low moisture condition. When "pumping" a zoom lens with palm (or paper) covering the lens, if the feeling of suctions occurs it means the lens is sucking in air from the front element and so would dust and moisture be entering the lens barrel(s) with these type of design even if the barrel has weather sealing. I am sure this maybe be a controversial topic for many but I am only sharing my personal experiences in hope to help others to keep their valuable equipment better protected.
Sadly more then glass can break when you drop a lens. I have seen lenses trashed without even breaking the glass just from killing the mechanisms such as stepping motors and AF controls. More often tgan not, if you drop a lens hard enough to break a protective filter, you probably did more damage than meets the eye.
Another tip about CPL filters: the maximum increase in blue sky saturation takes place at about 90 degrees perpendicular to the direction of the sun. So even if the sun is high, they can help make the horizon less hazy. Also, they can be very useful in landscape photos because they reduce any reflection from the surfaces of leaves to make them look greener, as well as making any water features look more colorful. If your scene has a mix of high wispy cirrus clouds and lower puffy cumulus clouds along with some blue sky, the clouds will really "pop" nicely. Also, as someone else commented, CPLs do not reduce reflection from polished metallic surfaces.
Gotta disagree with you; I always have glass up front….AND YOU CANT TELL the difference! Unless the pixel peeping supplants the actual shot. And if that’s the case…bigger issues are present.
Me- 44 years commercial; lost my first lens still in high school, at a motorcross event…ROCK dead center. Two more lenses, unprotected…nailed in the next few years…ALL a victim of front element damage…that a FILTER would’ve helped the odds against damage. But that’s just me! And I haven’t lost a single lens to optics damage in 35+ years. WORKS.😅
Agree Tommy. My daughters ''Sky"' filter I think it was called smashed but expensive lens AOK after we got the filter remains off. On all my lenses. Cheers
👌
A circular polarizer is a linear polarizer with a lambda 1/4 layer behind it. So the light is now circular polarized ..
This is needed for the sensor
I am sorry to say that the function of good CPLs has nothing to do how well KASE is making filters (which they do - but there are many other manufacturers who make also good filters). A CPL filter is improving the image quality due to the laws of physics namely polarization dependent Mie scattering and polarization dependent reflections close to the Brewster angle - it is simply optics. Of course a bad filter might hurt more than it helps.
Maybe you missed (or disagree) about the impact of flare reduction
@@mattgranger No I did not - I clearly agree that there is an impact on flare reduction when you add a polarizing filter. The comment simply addresses the fact that reflected or scattered rays are polarized in case certain conditions are met (see above) and therefore all polarizing filters have the potential to improve lens performance and improve image quality provided that they are well made. There are different processes responsible for it - one is reflection (say from water, glas etc. - as you say) and the other one is scattering (say from fog and the sky). Both polarizing effects have a different origin and different behavior. KASE certainly makes good filters as well as B+W, Nikon, and others. On my 800 pf I am able to get rid of most of the sometimes unwanted PF-element artifacts and make the bokeh visibly softer. I am myself currently working on a video addressing the use of polarizing filters in wildlife photography and I will also go into the details with respect to the different origins in physics with respect to polarization.
Interesting video with good details and explanation and most important is the willingness to shift opinion and explaining why. Thank you!
A CPL works great for the vintage car shows I go to. You definitely don’t want to remove all the reflections as it makes the image flat and boring, but you do want to see into windows etc. you obviously have to use it get the desired results not more and it doesn’t always work because of the angle of the sun.
Reflected light is polarized parallel to the reflecting surface (glass, water, but not metal, because of its electric properties). The first (outward facing) element in a (somewhat erroneously called) CPL filter is linear polarizer. To eliminate the reflected light the linear polarizer needs to be cross (perpendicular) to the polarization direction of the reflection. However polarized light as it comes out after passing trough the linear polarizer upfront bothers the autofocus system (at least that used to be the case, don’t know if that is still valid) Filter manufacturers, therefor e add a so-called quarter wave plate that converts the linear polarization into circular polarization (hence the name), that doesn’t bother the focus measurement.
At the same time this video came out there were also a ton of other videos released about KASE filters.
That leads me to believe it's more of an ad than a new realization that a polarizing filter could reduce flares and produce better images.
Yes KASE are sponsors of this video and long term partners. It’s disclosed in video and in text in description.
be careful when choosing a polarizer, there are cheap circular polarizers that are single coated. and those will degrade image quality. Its better to not use a polarizer than use a shitty one.
Also polarizers reduce the amount of light transmitted, about 1-2 stops. So obviously the amount of light reflected from the lens is lower in your test @9:36 because it appears two stops darker. would be the same if you used an 2 stop ND filter. Because you will have a longer exposure the amount of internal reflections does not change.
Nope. This does not reduce transmission ANYWHERE near 2 stops. And I corrected the exposure as best I could already when shooting.
Interesting video as usual! Some random thoughts based on your video and personal experience:
- this is probably more relevant for outdoors shots, shots where the sun (or the big source of light) is not behind camera or shots that have a huge plane of focus (it's a similar concept to dehaze in lightroom) and obviously all those scenarios where a polarizer is normally used (shots of water, trasparent glass, people with glasses, highly reflective surfaces)
- it is not clear to me how this could give benefits to a normal portrait shoot light setup (a 2 lights rembrandt+fill for example), might be worth a test (I'd think that the benefits and image degradation would cancel eachother out, which is still good)
- a polarizer makes it that much harder to photograph some atmospherical behaviours such as rainbows, mirages and water reflections. This might be obvious to someone who uses these filters often, but it should be pointed out to new adopters (this is due to the fact that all these phenomenons use polarized light, which is light that has lost some of its phase components due to reflection)
Matt, you need to do some reading on what a Circular Polarizer actually is. Because your statement that it spins is completely wrong. Yes it does spin, so does a Linear Polarizer. The Circular poloraizer is actually a linear Polarizer that has an additional Quarter Wave layer that de-polarizes the light coming out of the filter. The allows the light leaving the filter to pass thru the semi silvered mirrors on Autofocusing SLR's so the AF sensor behind that mirror can function. With a linear polarizer if the filter was in the area of a orientation that causes that light to be blocked then you can have very flaky AF responses and in Nikon's case metering that varies depending on how the polarizer was set because that was also behind the mirror on the AF models. BTW, on a mirrorless camera both linear and circular polarizers will function perfectly because of no mirrors. However back before these semi silvered mirrors were in use it was common to take two linear polarizers and stack them. By crossing the rotation of one of the filters you could have a budget Variable Neutral Density Filter. It's one reason why when I was shooting with my F2 I always had two 52mm Linear Polarizers in my bag.
Fabulous info Matt!. Now, how about asking for the almost impossible.... something that would work on my 8-15 F4L fisheye. When I shoot 360 images, invariably bright indoor lights cause a massive amount of flares and I spend hours cleaning that up in post. I do use a few tricks (i.e. block the light source ) if it's going to be captured in another overlapping shot but often that's impossible or impractical.
That... would be a worthy investment for me.
Very excited to try these. Thanks!
Not a 100% convinced about those photographs in the evidence section Matt...
If the sun is just a much in the frame as the No cpl and generic cpl filter images than that filter is amazing. But to me it seems like there is more sunlight being blocked by the leaves in the background and thus that is increasing the image clarity/contrast instead of the filter.
Still very intresting improvements for cpl's so will definitly look into them
I was on a tripod, didn't move a MM, and all photos were taken within a minute. They are as directly comparable as I could make them.
For 5 years now, since I got into the digital cameras, I'm a believer in the CPL lens. ... Rather than flat grass at the store want to sell you with the lens I was buying.
Thanks for this video. What about step down rings will they degrade the effect?
Great video Matt! Thanks for sharing. I have been using Heliopan for years but the new Kase system is appealing.
I freaking knew it! People look at me like I’m a troglodyte for saying that it cuts on internal reflections and it can boost your image rendition. People look at me like I’m crazy and say that I should have just closed down the aperture to get the same result. It’s not the same! The image still looks washed when closed down at times!
Send them this link :)
You say image "quality", I say image "character". Sometimes (definitely not always) the imperfections of a lens produce desirable outcomes.
Sometimes. Sure 👍
A couple of notes.
1. A polarizer, linear or circular, won't fix reflections off of metal surfaces
2. A lens hood is the primary way to avoid flare and ghosting. If you have to keep the hood off to rotate the polarizer then you may more than offset the benefits of coatings.
Realy to add to this disbelief, as you reco ended I installed the Kase but UV internal filter to protect the cencer , i also found slightly sharper images . To be honist i didt belive it eather .
I was an "Opticalman" in the navy, repairing navigational gear Telescope, binoculars. gun sights and periscopes and more. I don't know about new technology. Vietnam error we ere using WWII technology. And polarizing filter help a great deal.
Interesting! That must’ve been a very interesting and challenging role!
How would you say the Kase stacks up against the Nikkor/Nikon CPL series II?
Never used the Nikon one
@@mattgranger neither have I, but I was considering it. It's pricey compared to the Kase.
The protection against scratches by a clear or UV filter is worth the tiny degration of quality. Never had issues with the GOBE/URTH filters i use on all of my lenses
I have never seen a front element damaged in a way that the rest of the lens didn't also have damage that required service UNLESS there was a uv filter on there.
In my experience, as a former camera shop staff who also had a repair service, a UV filter is more likely to cause scratches or thread damage when it breaks, than just not having a filter on there in the first place.
UV filters break very easily. Steve Perry has a video on this, many filters break more easily than a piece of paper.
@scriptosaurusrex It protects against fine scratches from general use and that is what i want. If i drop the lens i have other issues than a broken filter
Agree with this
I only ever use cpl or nd filters when required and only to get the desired effect and improve my results. I never use UV Filters.
100%
weird they dont sell a 82mm at least here in Canada
The deal on Amazon if you hit apply discount is crazy
What discount? Is there a code or something?
With all respect B+W are the best!
I have actually compared over 20 brands... its easy to assume 'my one is the best' until you compare them side by side... ruclips.net/video/qlaSjUwhAtQ/видео.html
Agree with you. Without comparison they are all good. I do own three 82mm CPLs: Sigma CPL; 2) B+W basic CPL; 3) B+W CPL Master HTC Kasemann MRC Nano (it has word Kase on its name)🙂
I’m wondering why you’ve never owned a pair of polarized sunglasses, even $10 ones. CPLs are also great for exposing LCD TVs
I don't wear polarized glasses as they often interfere with displays on modern cameras
@@mattgranger Absolutely, can't even read phones or tablets sometimes. But wearing them does give you a different look at things you're missing with glare since maybe we aren't always looking through a viewfinder. I often tip them up and am amazed at the contrast differences sometimes just walking around
There are already out of 82mm and ships 1-2 months 😢
They have just launched. That time will likely be updated very soon
this is good
haha, I told you so 😅
oh yeah? When?